independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST file?

[Licensed]

independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST file?



Are there any independent utilities out there WHICH ACTUALLY WORK to
compress a pst file? (The internal one obviously does nothing whatsoever
except possibly save space taken up by attachments which have already been
removed from the file itself)

( as an additional question, I have enquired before on this topic an no one
at Microsoft would respond admitting that the internal one doesn't do much:
Does ANYBODY know if the XP version does anything more than the 2000 one?)

Licensed to Quill

[Milly]

There are no external utilities.

Compacting the .pst file will occur when you have deleted at "least" 10% of
the file space. Additionally, Outlook 2002 (don't recall for Outlook 2000)
will compact the file in the background while Outlook is open and idle.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.


After searching google.groups.com and finding not answer:
Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
| independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST file?
|
|
|
| Are there any independent utilities out there WHICH ACTUALLY WORK to
| compress a pst file? (The internal one obviously does nothing
| whatsoever except possibly save space taken up by attachments which
| have already been removed from the file itself)
|
| ( as an additional question, I have enquired before on this topic an
| no one at Microsoft would respond admitting that the internal one
| doesn't do much: Does ANYBODY know if the XP version does anything
| more than the 2000 one?)
|
| Licensed to Quill

[Licensed]

Thank you for the answer Millie: I don't know if I can ask you this but
does the continuous compress utility in the newer version actually do
anything? As the present version I have is so useless and as Microsoft is
so disinterested in making it work at all, I would strongly suspect that all
it does is to (as I mentioned) delete attachments from pst files AFTER you
have manually deleted them yourself first!

I think you answered a question I put out a few years ago on this point and
you agreed then that the compress utility didn't actually do anything.
Elsewhere it was suggested that the reason for this is that you have to run
it three times in a row; but as you correctly notice, running compress a
second time doesn't even work unless you have deleted 10% of the volume of,
for example, attachments to sent items. Which sort of implies that under
any normal circumstances if you have a pst file of (lets take a random
example) 283 megabytes, it is almost inconceivable that compress will even
run. That's right isn't it?

As an example I have an archive file with very little in it besides SENT
ITEMS and attachments which in (for example) a CompuServe inbox would occupy
under 20 kilobytes. Instead it occupies 283 megabytes and my 2 year old
notebook computer is running out of actual hard drive space. If I upgrade
and it CAN compress the file to any kind of reasonable level, it will be a
valuable upgrade. If it doesn't do anything, I suppose Microsoft is quite
good about refunding the retail price (when they have only been paid the
wholesale price)?

Or are there in fact some undocumented realities about how to run compress
which Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about?



"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in
message newshx.gbl... 
of 
2000) 

[Milly]

No.

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.


After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
Licensed to Quill <net> asked:

| Thank you for the answer Millie: I don't know if I can ask you this
| but does the continuous compress utility in the newer version
| actually do anything? As the present version I have is so useless
| and as Microsoft is so disinterested in making it work at all, I
| would strongly suspect that all it does is to (as I mentioned) delete
| attachments from pst files AFTER you have manually deleted them
| yourself first!
|
| I think you answered a question I put out a few years ago on this
| point and you agreed then that the compress utility didn't actually
| do anything. Elsewhere it was suggested that the reason for this is
| that you have to run it three times in a row; but as you correctly
| notice, running compress a second time doesn't even work unless you
| have deleted 10% of the volume of, for example, attachments to sent
| items. Which sort of implies that under any normal circumstances if
| you have a pst file of (lets take a random example) 283 megabytes, it
| is almost inconceivable that compress will even run. That's right
| isn't it?
|
| As an example I have an archive file with very little in it besides
| SENT ITEMS and attachments which in (for example) a CompuServe inbox
| would occupy under 20 kilobytes. Instead it occupies 283 megabytes
| and my 2 year old notebook computer is running out of actual hard
| drive space. If I upgrade and it CAN compress the file to any kind
| of reasonable level, it will be a valuable upgrade. If it doesn't do
| anything, I suppose Microsoft is quite good about refunding the
| retail price (when they have only been paid the wholesale price)?
|
| Or are there in fact some undocumented realities about how to run
| compress which Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about?
|
|
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote
| in message newshx.gbl...
|| There are no external utilities.
||
|| Compacting the .pst file will occur when you have deleted at "least"
|| 10% of the file space. Additionally, Outlook 2002 (don't recall for
|| Outlook 2000) will compact the file in the background while Outlook
|| is open and idle.
||
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding not answer:
|| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||| independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST file?
|||
|||
|||
||| Are there any independent utilities out there WHICH ACTUALLY WORK to
||| compress a pst file? (The internal one obviously does nothing
||| whatsoever except possibly save space taken up by attachments which
||| have already been removed from the file itself)
|||
||| ( as an additional question, I have enquired before on this topic an
||| no one at Microsoft would respond admitting that the internal one
||| doesn't do much: Does ANYBODY know if the XP version does anything
||| more than the 2000 one?)
|||
||| Licensed to Quill

[Licensed]

Millie

I appreciate your honesty and candour: Would you happen to know if there are
any applications in Linux which will convert a whole .PST file into some
Linux PIM (including an e-mail program) and compress the outrageously
bloatware .PST file? I am a bit reluctant to go out and buy a whole new
computer just because Microsoft does not find it expedient to write a
program which will compress its pst file?

L2Q

"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
news:%phx.gbl... 

[Milly]

No, none that I know of since the .pst file format is proprietary.

As for a linux PIM, try Evolution as it is the linux "clone" of Outlook.
Available from Ximian.

Microsoft has written software to compact the .pst file - it is just that it
does not perform to your satisfaction.

And it is Milly, not Millie.


--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.


After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
Licensed to Quill <net> asked:

| Millie
|
| I appreciate your honesty and candour: Would you happen to know if
| there are any applications in Linux which will convert a whole .PST
| file into some Linux PIM (including an e-mail program) and compress
| the outrageously bloatware .PST file? I am a bit reluctant to go
| out and buy a whole new computer just because Microsoft does not find
| it expedient to write a program which will compress its pst file?
|
| L2Q
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
| news:%phx.gbl...
|| No.
||
|| --�
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
|| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||
||| Thank you for the answer Millie: I don't know if I can ask you this
||| but does the continuous compress utility in the newer version
||| actually do anything? As the present version I have is so useless
||| and as Microsoft is so disinterested in making it work at all, I
||| would strongly suspect that all it does is to (as I mentioned)
||| delete attachments from pst files AFTER you have manually deleted
||| them yourself first!
|||
||| I think you answered a question I put out a few years ago on this
||| point and you agreed then that the compress utility didn't actually
||| do anything. Elsewhere it was suggested that the reason for this is
||| that you have to run it three times in a row; but as you correctly
||| notice, running compress a second time doesn't even work unless you
||| have deleted 10% of the volume of, for example, attachments to sent
||| items. Which sort of implies that under any normal circumstances if
||| you have a pst file of (lets take a random example) 283 megabytes,
||| it is almost inconceivable that compress will even run. That's right
||| isn't it?
|||
||| As an example I have an archive file with very little in it besides
||| SENT ITEMS and attachments which in (for example) a CompuServe inbox
||| would occupy under 20 kilobytes. Instead it occupies 283 megabytes
||| and my 2 year old notebook computer is running out of actual hard
||| drive space. If I upgrade and it CAN compress the file to any kind
||| of reasonable level, it will be a valuable upgrade. If it doesn't do
||| anything, I suppose Microsoft is quite good about refunding the
||| retail price (when they have only been paid the wholesale price)?
|||
||| Or are there in fact some undocumented realities about how to run
||| compress which Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about?
|||
|||
|||
||| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org>
||| wrote in message newshx.gbl...
|||| There are no external utilities.
||||
|||| Compacting the .pst file will occur when you have deleted at
|||| "least" 10% of the file space. Additionally, Outlook 2002 (don't
|||| recall for Outlook 2000) will compact the file in the background
|||| while Outlook
|||| is open and idle.
||||
||||
|||| --
|||| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||||
|||| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||||
||||
|||| After searching google.groups.com and finding not answer:
|||| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||||| independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST file?
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||| Are there any independent utilities out there WHICH ACTUALLY WORK
||||| to compress a pst file? (The internal one obviously does nothing
||||| whatsoever except possibly save space taken up by attachments
||||| which have already been removed from the file itself)
|||||
||||| ( as an additional question, I have enquired before on this topic
||||| an no one at Microsoft would respond admitting that the internal
||||| one doesn't do much: Does ANYBODY know if the XP version does
||||| anything more than the 2000 one?)
|||||
||||| Licensed to Quill

[Licensed]

Sorry Milly,

It is not that it doesn't perform to my satisfaction, it doesn't seem to
perform at all? All it does is remove (for example) attachments which have
already been manually removed from a file. If the Microsoft people could be
bothered, at least they could start by putting markers into files pointing
towards attachments rather than included copies of the whole attachment
itself.

But if the primary purpose is to make people think that their computers are
inadequate and that they need to go out buy faster computers with larger
hard drives, then I suppose both the software AND the compress files are
doing their jobs perfectly and are performing to Microsoft's saitsfaction.
After all, MOST users will not know that the reason they are running out of
hard drive space is because something like their PIM which hasn't got much
more than a few notes on it and a few records of e-mails, -which should fit
onto a palm pilot are hogging (in my case) about 400 megabytes of space.

(I am not a communist and am not here to argue against Microsoft assisting
computer manufacturers selling more newer computers with their OS built in)

(again, sorry about the Millie which the internal spelczech changes from
Milly to Millie if you have an over sensitive mouse button)

"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
newshx.gbl... 
it 

[Milly]

It seems to boil down to a matter of opinion. The Compact feature works for
me. I keep a normal .pst file (when not using my Exchange profile) of about
500 mbs. I use a third party application to save off attachments and I
manually compact my .pst file about once a month in older versions of
Outlook.

With Outlook 2003 (which I have now switched to using) the compaction runs
in the background since I have Outlook always open.

No one is calling names and you can't blame a company for "helping" its
partners by pushing for hardware upgrades. Seriously, I am not trying to
flame bait anyone.

For example, if you wanted to run Office 97 on an old x486, it simply would
not run. Who benefits? Hardware mfgs., memory makers, card manufacturers
for sound, video and modem makers? Moving from dial-up 28.8 modems to
broadband meant buying NICs. Whose fault is it when technology moves on and
requires an upgrade?

Have you tried installing Adobe Acrobat 6 on Windows 95? All software
producers eventually set a "bottom rung" for their software, both in terms
of Operating Systems and hardware. It would be too costly to support older
soft/hardware after a while.

It is a fact of life that after a while, running WFWG is not going to get
you the same bang for the buck that it did 10 years ago.

(Oh, and as for putting a link to attachments, what good is that when you
are not connected to the network where your attachment has been saved? Ever
had a server meltdown?)


--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.


After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
Licensed to Quill <net> asked:

| Sorry Milly,
|
| It is not that it doesn't perform to my satisfaction, it doesn't seem
| to perform at all? All it does is remove (for example) attachments
| which have already been manually removed from a file. If the
| Microsoft people could be bothered, at least they could start by
| putting markers into files pointing towards attachments rather than
| included copies of the whole attachment itself.
|
| But if the primary purpose is to make people think that their
| computers are inadequate and that they need to go out buy faster
| computers with larger hard drives, then I suppose both the software
| AND the compress files are doing their jobs perfectly and are
| performing to Microsoft's saitsfaction. After all, MOST users will
| not know that the reason they are running out of hard drive space is
| because something like their PIM which hasn't got much more than a
| few notes on it and a few records of e-mails, -which should fit onto
| a palm pilot are hogging (in my case) about 400 megabytes of space.
|
| (I am not a communist and am not here to argue against Microsoft
| assisting computer manufacturers selling more newer computers with
| their OS built in)
|
| (again, sorry about the Millie which the internal spelczech changes
| from Milly to Millie if you have an over sensitive mouse button)
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
| newshx.gbl...
|| No, none that I know of since the .pst file format is proprietary.
||
|| As for a linux PIM, try Evolution as it is the linux "clone" of
|| Outlook. Available from Ximian.
||
|| Microsoft has written software to compact the .pst file - it is just
|| that it does not perform to your satisfaction.
||
|| And it is Milly, not Millie.
||
||
|| --�
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
|| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||
||| Millie
|||
||| I appreciate your honesty and candour: Would you happen to know if
||| there are any applications in Linux which will convert a whole .PST
||| file into some Linux PIM (including an e-mail program) and compress
||| the outrageously bloatware .PST file? I am a bit reluctant to go
||| out and buy a whole new computer just because Microsoft does not
||| find it expedient to write a program which will compress its pst
||| file?
|||
||| L2Q
|||
||| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
||| news:%phx.gbl...
|||| No.
||||
|||| --�
|||| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||||
|||| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||||
||||
|||| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer
|||| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||||
||||| Thank you for the answer Millie: I don't know if I can ask you
||||| this but does the continuous compress utility in the newer version
||||| actually do anything? As the present version I have is so
||||| useless and as Microsoft is so disinterested in making it work at
||||| all, I would strongly suspect that all it does is to (as I
||||| mentioned)
||||| delete attachments from pst files AFTER you have manually deleted
||||| them yourself first!
|||||
||||| I think you answered a question I put out a few years ago on this
||||| point and you agreed then that the compress utility didn't
||||| actually do anything. Elsewhere it was suggested that the reason
||||| for this is that you have to run it three times in a row; but as
||||| you correctly notice, running compress a second time doesn't even
||||| work unless you have deleted 10% of the volume of, for example,
||||| attachments to sent items. Which sort of implies that under any
||||| normal circumstances if you have a pst file of (lets take a
||||| random example) 283 megabytes,
||||| it is almost inconceivable that compress will even run. That's
||||| right isn't it?
|||||
||||| As an example I have an archive file with very little in it
||||| besides SENT ITEMS and attachments which in (for example) a
||||| CompuServe inbox would occupy under 20 kilobytes. Instead it
||||| occupies 283 megabytes and my 2 year old notebook computer is
||||| running out of actual hard drive space. If I upgrade and it CAN
||||| compress the file to any kind of reasonable level, it will be a
||||| valuable upgrade. If it doesn't do anything, I suppose Microsoft
||||| is quite good about refunding the retail price (when they have
||||| only been paid the wholesale price)?
|||||
||||| Or are there in fact some undocumented realities about how to run
||||| compress which Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about?
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org>
||||| wrote in message newshx.gbl...
|||||| There are no external utilities.
||||||
|||||| Compacting the .pst file will occur when you have deleted at
|||||| "least" 10% of the file space. Additionally, Outlook 2002 (don't
|||||| recall for Outlook 2000) will compact the file in the background
|||||| while Outlook
|||||| is open and idle.
||||||
||||||
|||||| --
|||||| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||||||
|||||| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.
||||||
||||||
|||||| After searching google.groups.com and finding not answer:
|||||| Licensed to Quill <net> asked:
||||||| independent utilities which actually work to compress a PST
||||||| file?
|||||||
|||||||
|||||||
||||||| Are there any independent utilities out there WHICH ACTUALLY
||||||| WORK to compress a pst file? (The internal one obviously does
||||||| nothing whatsoever except possibly save space taken up by
||||||| attachments
||||||| which have already been removed from the file itself)
|||||||
||||||| ( as an additional question, I have enquired before on this
||||||| topic an no one at Microsoft would respond admitting that the
||||||| internal one doesn't do much: Does ANYBODY know if the XP
||||||| version does anything more than the 2000 one?)
|||||||
||||||| Licensed to Quill

[Licensed]

Milly

You are of course absolutely right although one does take your argument to
extremes somewhat when one talks about running Photoshop 7.0 on a 4 Meg 286.

But I am not so sure that the recent advances in speed etc have made much
difference to most people's running of their computers using the programs
which most people run

I always read the newest articles which said that current programs run just
as fast on the newest computers (remember those articles when Pentiums first
came out, - at 100 Mhz and magazines ran articles about the speed of those
programs on 100 Mhz 486s?) as on the older ones. They were always proven
to be completely missing the point at each stage of the computer's
development.

But when machines started running much faster than 800 Mhz, I really did
start to wonder how much better consumers would find their IE and Word
programs running when they started to buy 2 gig Pentium 4s? And I am still
not entirely convinced of this point two to three years later.

And the whole point of this interchange is that (for example) the CompuServe
mailbox could capture messages in a few bytes of text whereas Outlook seems
to need an average of 25 kb for every message?? Scroll to the right in (for
example) Outlook Express and see how much is taken up by each message.
Then multiply the number of messages in your inbox by a rough average of
that number (the average outlook express size on any given page) and see if
YOU get 500 megabytes?


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" <org> wrote in message
newshx.gbl... 
for 
about 
would 
and 
older 
Ever